Angry Farrell denies "long-term objective" of pay-for-play in "war" - Indo

[believebelive]

Will the majority of the GAA vote on this? Whatever u think of the rights or wrongs of grant aid it seems to me that the very least that should be done is for clubs to debate this and then mandate their county boards. Is that happening? Has anyone here got notification of a club meeting to debate these grants? I haven't.  The central council motion to congress specifically states that they are backing the grant aid package in its final form, yet this final form is not yet available for anybody to read? How can clubs discuss a motion to congress when the fine details of what the motion proposes have not even been worked out and will not be realeased until the middle of this month? It has taken Croke Park/The sports Council/The GPA/ three and a half months to finalise the package yet clubs are expected to discuss the package within a two week time frame and return their verdict to county boards by the first week of April so their delegates can vote as their count members want them too at Congress.

The grants and pay for play are very different issues IMO, the point is that DF's opinions on the future of the GAA are largely irrelevent as indeed are the opinions of IC players. Until the majority of GAA members vote for professionalism it doesn't matter what peoples private opinions are on the matter. I have no problem with DF wanting a professional GAA (if infact he does) and I have no problem with him trying to achieve that goal (if infact he is), the point is he has to convince me, you and thousands of others before that can happen.
                               IMO Dessie doesn't want a pro-GAA and he is not pursuing that goal, but if I'm wrong, so what? The bottom line is that like every other major change in the GAA it will only happen when the vast majority of members want it and vote for it.

Zulu - There are a large portion of gaels who think that the decision grant aid is the single most important decision to be taken by the GAA in the last fifty years perhaps. What I am saying is that the GAA hierarchy have denied the ordinary member a chance to speak on this issue. Plain and simple. In reality my opinion or ur opinion do not matter - what shud matter is that it is clear that the issue is big enough to warrant a proper debate. What i do not understand is why people are afraid to allow the ordinary members have their say.

[Zulu]

BB I certainly have no problem if the 'grants' debate goes through the same process as the 'Croke Park' debate. But I'm not sure I'd accept that there are a large portion of gaels who regard the grants as a major issue, certainly few of the ones I've spoken to are overly concerned. Now I accept that that proves nothing and in truth I have spoken to very few on this issue but I'm inclined to suspect that a few people are making a big noise over the grants issue. This issue was in the public domain for a long time, yet it was only when the top brass went the opposite way to what some people expected that they kicked up a fuss. The grants issue is a sub-argument in the larger GPA debate and while I support the grants but would lose little sleep if they are not granted I strongly support an independent players representitive organisation. The GAA needs a group that agitates for change and keeps the top brass on their toes.

[believebelive]

You have been listening to breheney in the Indepdent Zulu - This 'in the public domain thing' is a complete red herring.  It was not in the public domain for a loing time. Lets have a look at the history - the GAA and the GPA agree a jont document to put forwad to the government to cover 'out of pocket expenses' in april. The GAA comment twice on this in as many weeks and after their second comment say quite clearly that they will not be commenting again on the issue. They are completely silent until the players threaten strike late in the year.

Then all of a sudden a deal is done. A deal that contains no figures and which clearly states that grant aid is 'performance related.'
There is two distinct deals

So no Zulu - this deal has not been in the public domain for a long time and I am sorry but if people cannot see that there is a difference between an agreement, in April, which says it covers 'further out of pocket expenses' and one that is purely related to performance and was decided upon (in rough draft form only) in december then we are in trouble. Grants for out of pocket expenses and grants for performance on the field are two entirely different things and IMO the second is much more dangerous than the former. If you want to believe our President and journalists who choose to distort the facts then plz - go right ahead.

Why have no figures been made available  on the actual difference between the two tiers of this latest deal?

What is the possible reason for such secrecy?

And if you want copies of the two agreements i will pm you details Zulu and you can make your own mind up.

[Zulu]

And if you want copies of the two agreements i will pm you details Zulu and you can make your own mind up.

If you wouldn't mind BB. It's too late now to go through them but i will do tomorrow and I'll get back to you.

[Hardy]

Hardy read the first line of my previous post, the grants is a minor issue when compared with turning the GAA into a full time professional sporting organisation. You don't think that paying IC players a living wage could be foisted upon the GAA without a vote, do you?

Zulu, that's where we differ fundamentally. The grants issue is far from a minor issue. In my opinion, it's a very clear breach of the amateurism rule and it was very nearly foisted on us without a vote. Paying grants, as clarified by the European Court ruling on the Belgian judo(?) player renders playing GAA games an economic activity. The argument about who pays the money is a red herring. Any action of the GAA that impinges on a player's ability to "earn" this money will be in breach of the law. That's where the GAA executive has brought us without any reference, so far, to the membership through the proper democratic procedures.

Only the most blinkered, naive optimist could deny that it's a series of small steps from grants to bigger grants, to contracts, to transfers, to full time professionalism for a small elite (much fewer than 32 counties).

So, to answer your question, I would not have believed that the GAA could foist full time professionalism on us without a vote. But, to my amazement, they have almost succeeded in foisting the first step on us, by the simple method of decreeing that the grants arrangement breaches no rules, so no vote is necessary. If that gets through, on what basis would they need to come to congress with the next step - say a doubling of the grants? And the one after that  - and so on.

[Pangurban]

Hear,Hear Hardy, anyone with a nodding acquaintance of logic and reason knows you are 100% right.